About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

The City 5, Pacifica 5, California 4, Rachel Tom 2, Johnny Baldini 2, Virginia 2, Wiener 1, Brown 1, Rick Pavalatos 1, Gartherer 1, Albert Einstein 1, Olague 1, Ginsburg 1, Margaret Godell 1, Richard Harris 1, Arthur Feinstein 1, Tom Brookshire 1, Mr. Drasani 1, Mr. Plater 1, David Wilk 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 20, 2012
    3:30 - 4:00am PST  

3:30am
so, r colleagues, there's a motion to refer this item to the full board committee report for the consideration on november 20, 2012. can we adopt that without objection? * thank you. thank you, president chiu. mr. evans, please call item number 5. >> item number 5 is a resolution to remove certain proposals and activities from the environmental impact report for the recreation and park department significant natural resource area of management plan and to consider proposals and alternatives for the future of the sharp park golf course for the separate and complete ceqa process. >> thank you. the sponsor is supervisor kristina olague and i don't see her here or her staff. she has asked me to continue this item to the call of the chair and we'll do that after hearing public comment. so, if there are no questions, let's open this up for public comment. but i should alert people that this is going to be continued to the call of the chair likely
3:31am
after the end of public comment. so, i'm going to call a number of people that have filled out cards and i'll just urge people to keep in mind that we're not acting on this today. brent plater from wild equity. neil [speaker not understood], arthur finestein [speaker not understood], [speaker not understood], virginia marshall sequoia audubon society. brittany [speaker not understood] from wild equity [inaudible]. [inaudible]
3:32am
>> edth ultimate design or layout of sharp park golf course. instead of doing as it promised, the rec and park department at the last moment combined a new redevelopment project for the golf course into this pre-existing ceqa process for the significant natural resource area's management plan. all this resolution would do is require the recreation and parks department to make good on its word and consider these two different projects through two different ceqa proceedings and nothing more. it will not constrain the city's ultimate decision about what to do, what sharp park, they will not alter or change the kind of alternative the city will consider as it goes through this processes. all it will do is apply the two separate proceedings as [speaker not understood]. the reason this is important is items of that golf course plan
3:33am
are exceptionally controversial and have skipped specific ceqa proceedings required under law. it could not go through scoping. it did not go through the notification of other public partners that must comment on the plan. and the city is at great risk of unneeded ceqa litigation if this resolution does not pass. i don't believe it is necessary to extend this another time period. it's been sitting on the docket since june and we've been awaiting comments from rec and park and planning and the city attorney ever since and haven't heard a word. so, we find it kind of surprising all of a sudden they are objecting to this resolution. so, we would request that you not continue this motion and pass it on to the board today. thank you. >> thank you. mr. drasani? good afternoon, supervisors. this is neil dasai with national parks conservation association. i'd like to talk on two things right now.
3:34am
one is substance and one is process. we support the resolution as written. it segregates out the controversial elements of this plan that are actually not even relevant or germane to the natural area. that's a key thing here. since 2006 when the planning started on this e-i-r, the golf course elements were not a part of this. only natural areas. 2011 this last year, this nongermane item was put in. this is a procedural way to separate these two and allow supervisors to look at both projects for what they are and what they should be, all right. i won't repeat much of what mr. plater said, but i do want to say that from a procedural standpoint, this has been notified to you folks, to the
3:35am
city, to the public for more than five months and we would like to see it move forward for your consideration next week. thank you. supervisors, arthur feinstein, chair of the sierra bay club. second what has been said previously. i am very much in support of this. it's poor process. in fact, it's probably not a legal process that the department has taken in combining these two very disparate elements into one e-i-r. it's unclear to me when, if you have this hearing again we will have the opportunity to testify again -- i hope so -- and we would urge you at the very least if you can't just move it on to the full board which we think you should, it has been hanging here for a long time. that you schedule it for this committee next week, then, so that it can move forward this year.
3:36am
again, it's been with you for around five months now. rec and park has had ample time to comment on it. if it hasn't, it's sort of bad showing and bad faith to say at the last moment, wait, don't do this. and, again, this does not affect sharp park. this is in terms of the current management. does not affect outcomes. it simply asks for an appropriate process. so, thank you very much. appreciate it. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm maryian [speaker not understood] with golden gate audubon. golden gate audubon [speaker not understood] sharp park plan from the natural area management plan environmental impact report. the future of the sharp park golf course should be considered through a separate and complete california environmental quality act review process as previously recommended in the natural
3:37am
area's management plan scoping report. we suggest to support this resolution and to hear this agenda item next week. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to call a few more flames. tom brookshire. eric mixon. roxanne ramirez. johnny baldini and [speaker not understood] margaret good dale. lazar kettle man. rose [speaker not understood], and rachel tom. the next speaker? hello, my name is [speaker not understood]. we have to leave so i wonder if i'm going to be able to read her comment in addition to my own. >> you'll have to squeeze it into your own time. i'll read mine first. i think it might be short. my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm a san francisco state environmental studies major and i also live in district 1.
3:38am
san francisco's precautionary principle resolution states that the city has an obligation to consider a full range of alternatives. the recreation and parks department's failure to consider [speaker not understood] all alternatives to the sharp park golf course reenvironment plan violation of san francisco's precautionary principle resolution. buried on page 527 of the last page of the draft e-i-r, it is stated that the registration alternatives were rejected because they were not compatible with the existing and planned 18-hole layout of the historic golf course. the recommended management actions for the sharp park in the draft e-i-r do not refer to a planned 18-hole layout. how can a restoration alternative be rejected and play 18 holes of golf when the holes are not assessed in the draft e-i-r? the assessment of the current 18 holes of golf is that one of the main reasons why the sharp park golf course redevelopment plan was to be separated and [speaker not understood]
3:39am
independently of the significant natural resource area management plan. i urge you to vote yes on the resolution. now for brittany's. she is also an environmental studies student at san francisco state university. this issue is important to her not only as a student of the environment and currently environmental law, but also as a resident of the city. the attempt with the new draft e-i-r impact report characterizes the golf course as unacceptable and has been refuted that san francisco historic advisory commission when there is a clear disagreement such as this, it is a clear indicator that a separate evaluation for the alternative plan is necessary to maintain [speaker not understood], almost done, and the endangered species within it. [speaker not understood] procedural resolution to ensure that the department up holds [speaker not understood] the golf course project from the natural area plan and allows for the environmental review. a yes vote will pave the way for the protection of humans
3:40am
and wildlife [speaker not understood] areas to rely -- >> thank you very much. thank you so much. >> thanks a lot. good job squeezing it all into. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is johnny baldini and my comment is in regards to the recreation and parks department, significant natural resource area management plan for which a final draft plan was approved for environmental review in 2006 and has completed several steps in the environmental review process since. including the publication of a notice of preparation in april 2009, the completion distribution of an initial study to responsible agencies. conclusion of public scoping public comment periods in summer of 2009. around that year november, alternative [speaker not understood] was [speaker not understood] to significant natural area resource management plan. after the aforementioned steps in the review process had been completed, a member of the
3:41am
citizenry, [speaker not understood] and the environmental review process that bothered me most was the public scoping comment period. as a san franciscan being born in district 1, the natural areas mean everything to me. growing up golden gate park [speaker not understood] neighborhood kid. [speaker not understood]. myself and the other hundreds of thousands of other san franciscans who cherish the natural areas deserve the chance for comment. please separate 18 from the significant natural resource area management plan for separate review under the california environmental quality act. thank you, supervisors. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is david wilk. i studied environmental science
3:42am
and conservation biology at ucla so hopefully there is some input i can put in the subject. what i want to focus on is the aspect of stewardship in this issue. ecosystems are a very fragile organism. ze you can say, and there are organisms involved in it. tampering with even the smallest piece of that could have dire consequences. and as we can see with the gulf folks they have tampered with the ecosystem. the frog eggs as they have moved from the original location. something as simple as that could cause awful things to happen to the ecosystem. and if these gulf folks are so free to even tamper with that, then who knows what could come next. it's not out of their character
3:43am
to try to evade the process of ceqa. that is what they are trying to do right now. what we can hope to do is stop them from getting away with this so that hopefully other institutions similar to them will not be able to do this very same thing in the future. thank you. >> next speaker. hi, i'm virginia marshall from the sequoia audubon society and we do also support this resolution for reasons that have been adequately presented by plater and [speaker not understood]. sharp park is unique and we want it to be considered as a unique ecosystem. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, good afternoon, supervisors. i want to thank you for taking the time to review this
3:44am
resolution that has been six months in the making. we ask that you vote yes in the resolution that separates the sharp golf course from the natural areas plan which was precisely promised and that you have natural area management plan scoping. the department stated because redesigning or eliminating the sharp park golf course is a separate proposal being studied by the san francisco rec and park department. it will not be included or reevaluated as part of the proposed project and the analyzed e-i-r. we need to make good on this commitment. this resolution does not change the status quo at sharp park golf course or control its future. therefore, shareholdersv, your support does not mean you are taking a position on the future of sharp park. it only ensures keeping the commitment to the public and policy makers. you have unanimous support of the environmental shout and need your support as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.
3:45am
good afternoon, supervisors. my name is eric mix. i'm here to tell you about my support of the resolution to segregate out the sharp park golf course redevelopment plan from the natural areas management plan, environmental impact report * . sharp park is a unique ecosystem as you heard from speakers before me. in which case they have unique circumstances that exist in sharp park. before we can decide the site's future we must fully understand the function of the site. the function not only to surrounding communities and to the environment, but also as a function as a service to the community and its residents. so, to fully understand this, we must analyze and estimate what the real costs are going to be regarding the future of this site. i'd just like to invoke a quote by albert einstein that given about the importance of defining the problem. so, with given -- if his life
3:46am
depended on a single decision, he only had one hour, he would devote 55 minutes defining that problem. i think that's just a commitment that we must commit to perform and exercise due diligence to this site. again, the resolution does not change the status quo at sharp park golf course nor does it plan for or modify any land activity on sharp park. this is a procedural resolution to make sure the department makes good on its promise to the public and policy makers. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is stan [speaker not understood]. i'm a long-time resident of pacifica. i'd like to urge you to bring the comment section to a close preferably by next week so we can get along with finishing with the plan. i ask you to please vote to the
3:47am
resolution to remove sharp park golf course from the plan. it is a sticking point to the approval of a natural areas plan. it will allow these two separate projects to be considered on their own merits and by both the public and the policy makers. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm margaret godell. a long-time resident of pacifica. [speaker not understood]. i wonder when the citizens of san francisco voted to institute the national areas significant resources if they actually considered that a golf course would be considered one of those natural areas. it seems to me that a golf course, certainly this one, is no longer a natural area.
3:48am
[speaker not understood] has been drained, it's been turned into a ditch in order to avoid winter flooding on the greens. the golf course is an unnatural area. the golf range is an unnatural area. the natural area staff are talented and dedicated, they have their hands full with lands in san francisco, not even outside the city of san francisco. i ask you to approve separating the golf course from the natural areas and separate the areas because they are very separate lands and deserve separate consideration. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is la zar [speaker not understood]. i'm speaking on behalf of the natural areas program. in light of the mayor of pacifica park and rec director ginsburg wrote to say any
3:49am
divination of sharp park golf course as a historic landmark "frankly is not helpful in furthering a legitimate policy debate in san francisco." but against his judgment, both the city of pacifica both fail to recognize it as a historical resource [speaker not understood]. changes basically in the configuration of the golf course would likely violate state prc 58 28 a and place a burden on the city of san francisco. further, the state of california with the support of the individual and organizations that have an interest in historical and landscape preservation may be legally bound to defend the historical preservation to the detriment of san francisco's plans. the e-i-r makes mention of this and clearly states that there
3:50am
are significant impacts that would alter the historical nature of sharp park. the current designation of sharp park as historical presents severe legal challenges to the e-i-r as it now stands. a multi-million dollar plan to redevelop sharp park should only be considered through a separate planning process and not interfere with the natural area's program. i urge you to support the resolution and call it to the agenda as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. my name is rachel tom. i'm a second generation of san francisco. i have a bachelor's in environmental sustainability and 13 years of experience working with wildlife which includes the red legged frog and the san francisco gartherer snake both native to sharp park. i'm supporting this resolution and i'm asking that the supervisors support it as well.
3:51am
the resolution or the recreation and park department should follow through with its commitment to the public and policy makers by conducting separate reviews of these two very different projects. supporting this resolution does not modify any land activity already mentioned at sharp park. it is a procedural resolution that ensures the department stays true to its word. thank you. >> next speaker. good afternoon. rose brown on behalf of the center for biological diversity. we feel this should be a no-brainer here today and we're sorry we had to be here and sit on the hard benches so long. we're here because we care about this and these really are two different projects. we think the demonstration of support here from many different community groups from pacific to san mateo county to san francisco should indicate to the supervisors the breadth of the port for this resolution and really i think it indicates a bad faith on the part of the
3:52am
department of rec and park to come forward now and delay this matter even further. this has been on the agenda for a long time. without any controversy and we hope you would vote in support of this resolution and move it forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. melissa collins from the sierra club. i support the resolution to remove the golf course from the natural area planning management plan. they are two different projects and should be analyzed separately. there are a number of delays and we urge you to vote on this next week. >> thank you. next speaker. if there is anyone else that would like to speak, if you would line up on the side of the room that would be helpful. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. -- wiener and mar. my name is laura cleveland, i'm a richmond district resident. i'm here to support a voice in support of wildlife. i'm requesting you vote in favor of this proposed resolution. while i'm here for wildlife,
3:53am
the proposed resolution would not be commitment for or against the continuation of sharp park as a golf course. it would ensure a fair and targeted environmental review of the subject wetland/golf course. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. local law student interested in environmental law and avid golfer. i support this resolution because it rejects legitimate attempts to [speaker not understood]. given the information forcing requirements of ceqa, this resolution should be passed. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. if there's anyone else that would like to speak, please come forward. supervisors, my name is al markel. i've lived in san francisco all my life and i played golf a good part of it. i urge you to -- a no vote on
3:54am
this resolution. [speaker not understood]. all this does is waste more time and money. so, let's get on with it. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is victor car michael and i live in pacifica, california. my position is it makes no sense at all to merge these two studies. they are completely different entities. the sharp park redevelopment should be separated for two specific reasons. one is the golf course within the sharp park area is located right on top of a [speaker not understood] area. that complicates the e-i-r a great deal. [speaker not understood] prevents reclaiming the zone. e-i-r involved in studying the sharp park area, it needs to have a specific consideration. secondly, and of course, we all know that the sharp park area
3:55am
contains two endangered species. to merge these two studies together makes no sense at all. please, i urge you, urge the city council to please separate these two issues and i support the resolution. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. supervisors, good afternoon. i'm richard harris. i'm with the san francisco public golf alliance and i'm speaking on a procedural point rather than substance. we were this morning in a phone call with supervisor olague's staff. i was told that supervisor olague was asking for -- that her matter be not heard today and that it would be heard at
3:56am
some sometime in the future. the public here would not happen. i wrote an e-mail to her and to supervisor mar's legislative aide, rick pavalatos. rick confirmed in an e-mail to me that the public hearing would not proceed today. no public hearing today. >> mr. harris, because it's agendized, we have to listen to public comment. so, that doesn't make any sense to me, but that's what was said by my staff. i have it in an e-mail. the matter will not be heard today is what your staff told me. >> we're not taking action, but we're obligated to hold a public hearing because it was noticed.
3:57am
i have many people who were lined up to come in and present written testimony. i had written testimony to prepare -- to present. and i called them and told them not to come because we had been told by supervisor olague whose matter it is and by your staff that the public hearing -- >> we are not acting on it today. if you could continue your public comment. that's the point. that at such time that it is considered at a future, i just want that confirmation from you that public comment will be allowed when you have it continued. >> yes, we will have public comment when it's continued probably to december 3rd, but that's going to be the motion after public comment is over.
3:58am
thank you very much. hi, my name is sally stevens. i'm the chair of sf dog. we support active recreational uses and adamantly oppose any move to give sharp park to [speaker not understood]. it is suing san francisco to try to force us to close the sharp park golf course and give it to the gg & a. the lawsuit is in the courts right now, but preliminary [speaker not understood]. this resolution will help their lawsuit. a cynical point by them to get you supervisors to do what they don't seem able to get the courts to do, to push their extremist plan to close sharp park golf course and give it to the [speaker not understood]. you shouldn't make it easier for people suing the city to win their lawsuit. stay out of it and vote no.
3:59am
you should not assert pressure on planning while an e-i-r is being developed. that is the intent to change the results of the nap e-i-r. don interfere and vote no on this resolution. the e-i-r in question is supposed to be for the natural area management plan, not just parts of it. you should not allow extremists with a stake in this to pick and choose which parts of the overall nap plan are considered in the e-i-r. if it is to have any real meaning it is to look at all, not just some aspects. it should not be completed if it does not include sharp park plan. it will be wasted. please vote no on this. please do not let extremists with an agenda and lawsuit use you the supervisors to do their dirty work for them. don't let them fool you into giving them what have not been able to get from the people, from rpd, from the mayor or from the courts. please ask supervisor olague to pull this resolution so no one

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)